Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Runtshit/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations‎ | Runtshit

User:Runtshit

Runtshit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report date January 20 2009, 11:58 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by RolandR (talk)


Already blocked as a sock; report submitted for check user to identify and block proxy IPs and sleeper accounts


Evidence submitted by RolandR (talk)

Diff RolandR (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by RolandR (talk)

Blocked sockpuppets. Reported for CU to identify and block sleepers and IPs RolandR (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

This case should not be closed. Evidence of further sockpuppets has been added, after previous IPs have been blocked. CU needed for more IPs. RolandR (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + A (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and arbcom ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by RolandR (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]




Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
No obvious sleepers lurking,  IP blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Reporter added more accounts after CU run but before closure. Re-opened this to CU these before we finish this case (thanks) Mayalld (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Tiptoety talk 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date February 1 2009, 15:49 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by RolandR (talk)


Blocked already for typical Runtshit vandalism. Reported for checkuser to identify sleepers and proxy ips.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by RolandR (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
No obvious sleepers. Probable proxies blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions


Report date February 3 2009, 14:38 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by RolandR (talk)


Yet another blocked vandal. Reported to identify proxy ips and sleepers.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by RolandR (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Mayalld (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
--Kanonkas :  Talk   17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date February 6 2009, 11:07 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by RolandR (talk)


Blocked as a sockpuppet of Runtshit. Reported for checkuser to identify sleepers and proxy IPs


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by RolandR (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

No obvious sleepers lurking,  IP blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date February 12 2009, 11:48 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by RolandR (talk)


Blocked Runtshit sock; reported to check for sleepers and proxy IPs.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by RolandR (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]


  •  Clerk endorsed - Cases like this could probably be reported to the "quick case" section at the bottom of the mainpage from now on, but there is no issue with doing it here either. Tiptoety talk 17:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date February 23 2009, 14:51 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by RolandR (talk)


Already blocked; reported for checkuser to identify proxy IPs and sleepers.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by RolandR (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date February 24 2009, 12:49 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by RolandR (talk)


Already blocked; reported for checkuser to identify proxy IPs and sleepers.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by RolandR (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]


  •  Deferred another clerk. Whilst it is clear that Runtshit is a serial vandal, and that he is stalking the reporter, the socks that he creates can invariably be blocked as vandals. Running a CU every time he vandalises is just creating a scoreboard for him. Per WP:DENY, and WP:RBI, I would suggest that as his socks get blocked for vandalism soon enough, creating a new SPI report is superfluous. Seeking sleepers and underlying ranges by CU on several occasions hasn't actually put paid to his reign of vandalism. It has merely imortalised it. I am minded to decline this request for CU, and close the case, but would appreciate other opinions on it. Mayalld (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I'm going to partially agree here. I count 5 cases just this month, and one from last month; all of which resulted in no sleepers, and possibly one or two open proxies. Any more should be handled per the usual way. Synergy 15:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

no Declined Serial vandal with dynamic IP. Block on sight as per WP:DUCK and ignore. -- Avi (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

User:Zuminous

Zuminous (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Runtshit

Runtshit (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date March 4 2009, 19:18 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by RolandR (talk)

Identical BLP-violating edit [1] to that by earlier sockpuppet [2].


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by RolandR (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Yes, I thought I had; I don't know what went wrong there! Added again RolandR (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
27 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Zuminous, who is in turn a proven sockpuppet of Runtshit, was a single-purpose account for the purpose of attacking Barry Chamish. Several socks were blocked under this puppetmaster, before it was confirmed as itself a sock. Following discussion on BLPN, I have looked at the history of the article and discovered the accounts above, many of them SPAs, which have been making edits very similar, or identical, to those made by already proven socks. Although some of these are old and dormant accounts, I think they should all be blocked and the IPs checked as proxies, in order to limit future abuse. RolandR (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following are   Confirmed matches (please note that some are   Stale and also that checkuser cannot disclose links between IPs and named accounts):

06 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


In the last week I have received some 130-150 emails from these 3 accounts; see here and here. The first was: "You know what? It does not matter whether or not the anti-Semitic United Nations creates yet another Arab state. Do you know why? Because the West Bank is part of the Jewish homeland, and you and your subhuman Fakestinians will be exterminated just like you tried to do to us. I cannot wait for the next war to break out so I could start slaughtering Arab scum." Because of the email-adress of the first account (Death2FakeJewsLikeRRance@mailinator.com) I assumed the Runtshit-vandal. But: I know that Grawp has "graced" the Israeli/Palestine-arena also lately, so; is this Runtshit or Grawp...or someone else? (In any case, have now disabled my email-account.) Huldra (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I too have received such emails from these accounts. But I don't believe this is Runtshit, the behaviour is very different. Judging by previous such abuse (Captain Thoster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), My password is poopvomit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and many others, it seems more likely that this is Jarlaxleartemis. See previous ANI about this. RolandR (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

They're all probably him; all of them have incessantly spammed emails, and all such accounts have had email revoked. Other than that, there is nothing else we can do here. –MuZemike 07:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State of Palestine has been full-protected for 1 week. –MuZemike 07:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and just to clarify there is no way for us to determine if these are Runtshit or not since all the data we have on that user is   Stale. It really shouldn't matter much though, they should be blocked on sight either way. Tiptoety talk 07:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Requesting IP block, already blocked. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. These editors are clearly Runtshit. The content of the edits, the articles vandalised, and the user names are all characteristic of this vandal. RolandR (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
17 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

These accounts have all been used to add defamatory material to Amiram Goldblum, an article about a leader of the Israeli Peace Now group. In most cases, they have made no other edits. In their choice of target, the style of their abuse, the unreliable sources cited, and the usernames, they very strongly resemble the pattern of this serial puppeteer. A CU is needed both to confirm this suspicion, and to flush out further sleepers. RolandR (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC) RolandR (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •   Confirmed the following are related to previously blocked Runtshit socks:

Furthermore 64.250.114.0/24 is a webhost and the specific IP looks like a proxy and is now blocked. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

07 September 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Edit-warring and BLP violations on Neve Gordon, a frequent target of this vandal. Edits use the non-reliable Isracampus site, often cited by Runtshit. RolandR (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •   Clerk endorsed - I am endorsing the checkuser request because this looks a lot like Runtshit's modus operandi. Additionally, the links and content are indicative of him. However, it is also possible that YankeeYiddel is unrelated to Runtshit, but simply made the Brary goolam account to engage in edit warfare. If the former, I will indef both. If the latter, then I will indef Barry goolam and give YankeeYiddel a temporary block for making highly disruptive edit-warring socks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Confirmed that Barry goolam matches Runtshit (or at least matches a bunch of previously blocked and tagged Runtshit socks), and I found, blocked, and tagged a couple more. YankeeYiddel is technically   Unrelated; different hemisphere. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Vandalism and block evasion Eyesnore 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

These are both clearly Runtshit RolandR (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
12 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Attacks on Amiram Goldblum; there have been many similar (but now hidden) attacks by previously blocked socks. RolandR (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
28 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Both these accounts have been used to edit Steven Plaut from the apparent POV of the subject, as have several identified socks. Each was created concurrently with recently blocked socks: Liberate cyprus at 12:06 on 27 March, concurrently with blocked sock Rollie wet bed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); Aardvaik at 09:14 on 28 March, concurrently with blocked sock Jim hacker7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Each subsequently edited at the same time as the blocked socks (diffs hidden, so I cannot point to them).

Runtshit has a history of such apparent "clean hand, dirty hand" accounts, and a CU is almost certain to confirm this linkage, and to uncover other possible sleepers. RolandR (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Identical BLP-breaching personal attacks at Talk:Amiram Goldblum. The article and talk page have been plagued by abusive comments, and one editor has already been topic-banned. These two accounts are clearly socks of another, possibly Runtshit. There are likely to be other linked accounts, or sleepers; though the puppeteer may be using proxies and anonymisers. RolandR (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
17 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Edited the Ilan Halevi article and added a rather non-constructive comment to an editor. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

An obvious Runtshit sock, and already blocked. In future, it is much quicker to report such socks directly to WP:AIV. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
18 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Over at Moshé Machover, the edits seemed awfully familiar to User:Second cousing seth. I couldn't review the edits again because they were RevDeleted. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Runtshit for more information. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Next time you see a Runtshit sock, please report them to AIV/ANI. This makes blocking quicker. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 15:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for the note. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
11 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Edits--now deleted--clearly show a connection with Runtshit. Admins: see deleted edits here Willking1979 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
22 March 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Vandalism and inappropriate page creation Eyesnore (pc) 16:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. These are definitely not Runtshit socks. They share none of this serial malicious vandal's characteristics, and I really can't see why the filer thought they were his work. RolandR (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

2 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits at Stone Temple Pilots (which is where most of the disruptive editing has taken place), not even resuming their other usual edits.


Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This is unrelated to the user known as Runtshit, and the complaint is unclear... closing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Runtshit/Archive&oldid=1142566424"